Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 11
11.1 Faustus quotes passages to show that the Apostle Paul abandoned belief in the incarnation, to which he earlier held. Augustin shows that the apostle was consistent with himself in the utterances quoted PL 42, 243
1. Faustus said: Assuredly I believe the apostle. And yet I do not believe that the Son of God was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, because I do not believe that God’s apostle could contradict himself, and have one opinion about our Lord at one time, and another at another. But, granting that he wrote this,—since you will not hear of anything being spurious in his writings,—it is not against us. For this seems to be Paul’s old belief about Jesus, when he thought, like everybody else, that Jesus was the son of David. Afterwards, when he learned that this was false, he corrects himself; and in his Epistle to the Corinthians he says: "We know no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more." Observe the difference between these two verses. In one he asserts that Jesus was the son of David after the flesh; in the other he says that now he knows no man after the flesh. If Paul wrote both, it can only have been in the way I have stated. In the next verse he adds: "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." The belief that Jesus was born of the seed of David according to the flesh is of this old transitory kind; whereas the faith which knows no man after the flesh is new and permanent. So, he says elsewhere: "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things." We are thus warranted in preferring the new and amended confession of Paul to his old and faulty one. And if you hold by what is said in the Epistle to the Romans, why should not we hold by what is said to the Corinthians? But it is only by your insisting on the correctness of the text that we are made to represent Paul as building again the things which he destroyed, in spite of his own repudiation of such prevarication. If the verse is Paul’s, he has corrected himself. If Paul should not be supposed to have written anything requiring correction, the verse is not his.
FAUSTUS dixit: Apostolum accipis? Et maxime. Cur ergo non credis Filium Dei ex semine David natum secundum carnem ? Non equidem crediderim Apostolum Dei contraria sibi scribere potuisse, et modo hanc, modo illam de Domino nostro habuisse sententiam. Sed quia vobis ita placet, qui nunquam sine stomacho auditis aliquid esse in Apostolo cauponatum, ne hoc quidem nobis sciatis esse contrarium Si quidem haec vetus videatur esse et antiqua opinio Pauli de Jesu, cum eum et ipse David filium putaret, ut caeteri: quod tamen ubi falsum didicit, interpolat et infirmat, scribensque ad Corinthios: Nos, inquit, neminem novimus secundum carnem: et si cognovimus secundum carnem Christum, sed nunc jam non novimus. Quare consideres oportet, quantum intersit inter haec duo capitula, e quibus unum perhibet Jesum filium David secundum carnem, alterum vero jam se neminem nosse secundum carnem. Quae si utraque sunt Pauli, aut hac ratione erunt, qua dixi; aut unum ipsorum non erit Pauli. Prosequitur denique: Itaque, inquit, si qua est in Christo nova creatura, vetera transierunt: ecce facta sunt omnia nova . Vides ergo eum veterem appellare et transitoriam fidem illam priorem, id est, Jesum credidisse ex semine David secundum carnem: novam vero hanc secundam et permanentem, qua neminem jam noverit secundum carnem. Quapropter et alibi: Cum essem, inquit, parvulus, ut parvulus loquebar, ut parvulus sapiebam, ut parvulus cogitabam: cum autem factus sum vir, quae parvuli erant deposui . Quod si ita est, quid ergo et nos indignum facimus, si novam et meliorem Pauli tenentes confessionem, veterem illam ac deteriorem projicimus? Aut si vobis secundum quod ad Romanos scribit, credere cordi est; nobis quare licitum non sit, secundum quod ad Corinthios dogmatizare? Quamvis et hoc ad duritiam vestram ita responderim. Alioquin absit Apostolum Dei, quod aedificavit, unquam destruere, ne se ipse praevaricatorem constituat, ut contestatus est . Verumtamen si ejus est et prior illa sententia, nunc emendata est: sin fas non est Paulum inemendatum dixisse aliquid unquam, ipsius non est.
11.2 PL 42, 245
2. Augustin replied: As I said a little ago, when these men are beset by clear testimonies of Scripture, and cannot escape from their grasp, they declare that the passage is spurious. The declaration only shows their aversion to the truth, and their obstinacy in error. Unable to answer these statements of Scripture, they deny their genuineness. But if this answer is admitted, or allowed to have any weight, it will be useless to quote any book or any passage against your errors. It is one thing to reject the books themselves, and to profess no regard for their authority, as the Pagans reject our Scriptures, and the Jews the New Testament, and as we reject any books peculiar to your sect, or any other heretical sect, and also the apocryphal books, which are so called, not because of any mysterious regard paid to them, but because they are mysterious in their origin, and in the absence of clear evidence, have only some obscure presumption to rest upon; and it is another thing to say, This holy man wrote only the truth, and this is his epistle, but some verses are his, and some are not. And then, when you are asked for a proof, instead of referring to more correct or more ancient manuscripts, or to a greater number, or to the original text, your reply is, This verse is his, because it makes for me; and this is not his, because it is against me. Are you, then, the rule of truth? Can nothing be true that is against you? But what answer could you give to an opponent as insane as yourself, if he confronts you by saying, The passage in your favor is spurious, and that against you is genuine? Perhaps you will produce a book, all of which can be explained so as to support you. Then, instead of rejecting a passage, he will reply by condemning the whole book as spurious. You have no resource against such an opponent. For all the testimony you can bring in favor of your book from antiquity or tradition will avail nothing. In this respect the testimony of the Catholic Church is conspicuous, as supported by a succession of bishops from the original seats of the apostles up to the present time, and by the consent of so many nations. Accordingly, should there be a question about the text of some passage, as there are a few passages with various readings well known to students of the sacred Scriptures, we should first consult the manuscripts of the country where the religion was first taught; and if these still varied, we should take the text of the greater number, or of the more ancient. And if any uncertainty remained, we should consult the original text. This is the method employed by those who, in any question about the Scriptures, do not lose sight of the regard due to their authority, and inquire with the view of gaining information, not of raising disputes.
AUGUSTINUS respondit: Hoc est quod paulo ante dixi, quia ubi sic manifesta veritate isti praefocantur, ut obsessi dilucidis verbis sanctarum Scripturarum, exitum in eis fallaciae suae reperire non possint, id testimonium quod prolatum est, falsum esse respondent. O vocem a veritate fugacem, in amentia pertinacem! Usque adeo invicta sunt, quae adversus vos de divinis codicibus proferuntur, ut non sit aliud quod dicatis, nisi eos esse falsatos. Quae jam auctoritas litterarum aperiri, quis sacer liber evolvi, quod documentum cujuslibet scripturae ad convincendos errores vestros exseri potest, si haec vox admittitur, si alicujus ponderis aestimatur? Aliud est ipsos libros non accipere, et nullo eorum vinculo detineri, quod Pagani de omnibus Libris nostris, quod Judaei de Novo Testamento faciunt, quod denique nos ipsi de vestris et aliorum haereticorum, si quos suos et proprios habent, vel de iis qui appellantur apocryphi: non quod habendi sint in aliqua auctoritate secreta, sed quia nulla testificationis luce declarati, de nescio quo secreto, nescio quorum praesumptione prolati sunt: aliud est ergo auctoritate aliquorum vel librorum vel hominum non teneri, et aliud est dicere, Iste quidem vir sanctus omnia vera scripsit, et ista epistola ipsius est, sed in ea ipsa hoc ejus est, hoc non est ejus. Ubi cum ex adverso audieris, Proba; non confugias ad exemplaria veriora, vel plurimum codicum, vel antiquorum, vel linguae praecedentis unde hoc in aliam linguam interpretatum est: sed dicas, Inde probo hoc illius esse, illud non esse, quia hoc pro me sonat, illud contra me. Tu es ergo regula veritatis? quidquid contra te fuerit, non est verum? Quid, si alius simili insania, sed tamen qua tua duritia confringatur, existat et dicat, Imo illud quod pro te sonat, falsum est; hoc autem quod contra te est, verum est? quid acturus es, nisi forte alium librum prolaturus, ubi quidquid legeris, secundum tuam sententiam possit intelligi? Hoc si feceris, non de aliqua ejus particula, sed de toto audies contradicentem et clamantem, Falsus est. Quid ages? quo te convertes? quam libri a te prolati originem, quam vetustatem, quam seriem successionis testem citabis? Nam si hoc facere conaberis, et nihil valebis: et vides in hac re quid Ecclesiae catholicae valeat auctoritas, quae ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus Apostolorum usque ad hodiernum diem succedentium sibimet episcoporum serie, et tot populorum consensione firmatur. Itaque si de fide exemplarium quaestio verteretur, sicut in nonnullis, quae et paucae sunt, et sacrarum Litterarum studiosis notissimae sententiarum varietates; vel ex aliarum regionum codicibus, unde ipsa doctrina commeavit, nostra dubitatio dijudicaretur, vel si ibi quoque codices variarent, plures paucioribus, aut vetustiores recentioribus praeferrentur: et si adhuc esset incerta varietas, praecedens lingua, unde illud interpretatum est, consuleretur. Hoc modo quaerunt, qui quod eos movet in Scripturis sanctis, tanta auctoritate firmatis, invenire volunt, ut habeant unde instruantur, non unde rixentur.
11.3 PL 42, 246
3. As regards the passage from Paul’s epistle which teaches, in opposition to your heresy, that the Son of God was born of the seed of David, it is found in all manuscripts both new and old of all Churches, and in all languages. So the profession which Faustus makes of believing the apostle is hypocritical. Instead of saying, "Assuredly I believe," he should have said, Assuredly I do not believe, as he would have said if he had not wished to deceive people. What part of his belief does he get from the apostle? Not the first man, of whom the apostle says that he is of the earth, earthy; and again, "The first man Adam was made a living soul." Faustus’ First Man is neither of the earth, earthy, nor made a living soul, but of the substance of God, and the same in essence as God; and this being is said to have mixed up with the race of darkness his members, or vesture, or weapons, that is, the five elements, which also are part of the substance of God, so that they became subject to confinement and pollution. Nor does Faustus get from Paul his Second Man, of whom Paul says that He is from heaven, and that He is the last Adam, and a quickening spirit; and also that He was born of the seed of David after the flesh, that He was made of a woman, made under the law, that He might redeem them that were under the law. Of Him Paul says to Timothy: "Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead, according to my gospel." And this resurrection he quotes as an example of our resurrection: "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures." And a little further on he draws an inference from this doctrine: "Now, if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?" Our professed believer in Paul believes nothing of all this. He denies that Jesus was born of the seed of David, that He was made of a woman (by the word woman is not meant a wife in the common sense of the word, but merely one of the female sex, as in the book of Genesis, where it is said that God made a woman before she was brought to Adam); he denies His death, His burial, and His resurrection. He holds that Christ had not a mortal body, and therefore could not really die; and that the marks of His wounds which He showed to His disciples when He appeared to them alive after His resurrection, which Paul also mentions, were not real. He denies, too, that our mortal body will be raised again, changed into a spiritual body; as Paul teaches: "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." To illustrate this distinction between the natural and the spiritual body, the apostle adds what I have quoted already about the first and the last Adam. Then he goes on: "But this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." And to explain what he means by flesh and blood, that it is not the bodily substance, but corruption, which will not enter into the resurrection of the just, he immediately says, "Neither shall corruption inherit incorruption." And in case any one should still suppose that it is not what is buried that is to rise again, but that it is as if one garment were laid aside and a better taken instead, he proceeds to show distinctly that the same body will be changed for the better, as the garments of Christ on the mount were not displaced, but transfigured: "Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall not all be changed, but we shall all rise." Then he shows who are to be changed: "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise incorruptible, and we shall be changed." And if it should be said that it is not as regards our mortal and corruptible body, but as regards our soul, that we are to be changed, it should be observed that the apostle is not speaking of the soul, but of the body, as is evident from the question he starts with: "But some one will say, How are the dead raised, and with what body do they come?" So also, in the conclusion of his argument, he leaves no doubt of what he is speaking: "This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." Faustus denies this; and the God whom Paul declares to be "immortal, incorruptible, to whom alone is glory and honor," he makes corruptible. For in this monstrous and horrible fiction of theirs, the substance and nature of God was in danger of being wholly corrupted by the race of darkness, and to save the rest part actually was corrupted. And to crown all this, he tries to deceive the ignorant who are not learned in the sacred Scriptures, by making this profession: I assuredly believe the Apostle Paul; when he ought to have said, I assuredly do not believe.
Hoc autem quod adversus impietatem vestram ex apostoli Pauli Epistola profertur, Filium Dei ex semine David esse secundum carnem , omnes codices et novi et veteres habent, omnes Ecclesiae legunt, omnes linguae consentiunt. Exuimini ergo pallio fallaciae, quo Faustus indutus, cum sibi proposuisset tanquam interrogantem et dicentem, Accipis apostolum Paulum? respondit, Et maxime. Cur enim non potius respondit, Et minime; nisi quia fallax, aliud quam id quod falsum erat, respondere non potuit? Quid enim accipit apostoli Pauli? Non primum hominem, quem ille dicit de terra terrenum: de quo item dicit, Factus est primus homo Adam in animam viventem. Ille autem annuntiat nescio quem primum hominem, nec de terra terrenum, nec factum in animam viventem, sed de substantia Dei, idipsum existentem quod Deus est, membra sua, vel vestimenta sua, vel arma sua, id est quinque elementa, cum et ipsa nihil aliud essent quam substantia Dei, in tenebrarum gente mersisse, ut inquinata caperentur. Non secundum hominem, quem Paulus dicit de coelo, quem dicit etiam novissimum Adam in spiritum vivificantem , quem dicit factum ex semine David secundum carnem, factum ex muliere, factum sub Lege, ut eos qui sub Lege erant, redimeret ; de quo ad Timotheum dicit, Memor esto Christum Jesum resurrexisse a mortuis ex semine David, secundum Evangelium meum ; in cujus exemplo etiam resurrectionem nostram praedicat dicens, Tradidi enim vobis in primis quod et accepi: quia Christus mortuus est pro peccatis nostris; secundum Scripturas; et quia sepultus est et quia resurrexit tertia die secundum Scripturas. Et paulo post infert quare hoc dixerit: Si autem Christus praedicatur quia resurrexit a mortuis, quomodo dicunt quidam in vobis quia resurrectio mortuorum non est ? Iste autem, qui interrogatus utrum accipiat apostolum Paulum, respondet, Et maxime, haec omnia negat: nec Jesum ex semine David vult accipere, nec factum ex muliere, quam, non quod fuerit vel concumbendo vel pariendo corrupta, mulierem. Paulus appellat; sed more Scripturarum loquitur, quae ipsum sexum sic appellare consueverunt: sicut in Genesi de Eva scriptum est, Formavit eam in mulierem ; cum commixta viro non fuisset. Nec ipsam mortem Christi, et sepulturam, et resurrectionem accipit; quandoquidem Christum dicit, nec mortale corpus habuisse, ubi illa vera mors esset; nec illas cicatrices veras fuisse, quas post resurrectionem discipulis ostendit, cum eis, quod et Paulus commemorat, vivus apparuit : nec ipsam carnem nostram resurrecturam, in corpus spirituale mutatam, sicut apertissime idem apostolus dicit, Seminatur corpus animale, surgit corpus spirituale. Unde discernens inter corpus animale et spirituale, contexuit quod jam commemoravi de primo Adam et de novissimo Adam. Deinde intulit: Hoc autem dico, fratres, quoniam caro et sanguis regnum Dei possidere non possunt. Et ne quisquam ipsam speciem carnis, et ipsam substantiam non posse resurgere credidisset, exprimere volens quid nunc appellaverit carnem et sanguinem, quia ipsam corruptionem intelligi voluit, quae tunc in resurrectione justorum non erit, continuo contexuit: Neque corruptio incorruptelam possidebit. Et ne adhuc quisquam putaret, non illud quod sepultum fuerit resurrecturum, sed tanquam alia tunica ponatur, et alia melior accipiatur, volens apertissime declarare quia hoc ipsum in melius commutabitur: sicut vestimenta Christi in monte non sunt posita, et alia sumpta, sed ipsa quae fuerant, in melius clarificata sunt : sequitur et contexit dicens, Ecce mysterium vobis dico: omnes quidem resurgemus, non tamen omnes immutabimur. Et ne adhuc esset incertum, qui sint qui immutabuntur, In atomo, inquit, in ictu oculi, in novissima tuba: canet enim tuba, et mortui resurgent incorrupti, et nos immutabimur. Adhuc forte dicant, non secundum hoc mortale et corruptibile corpus nos in resurrectione immutari, sed secundum animam: cum Apostolus hoc non proposuerit unde diceret, sed de corpore ab ipsius quaestionis initio locutus fuerit, sicut ipsa ejus indicat propositio, Sed dicet aliquis, inquit, Quomodo resurgunt mortui? quo autem corpore veniunt? Hic jam consequenter tanquam digito ostendit unde loqueretur, et subjecit dicens, Oportet enim corruptibile hoc induere incorruptelam, et mortale hoc induere immortalitatem . Haec ergo cum iste neget, cumque ipsum Deum, de quo Paulus dicit, Immortali, incorruptibili, soli Deo honor et gloria , iste corruptibilem praedicet; quandoquidem substantiam ejus atque naturam et totam timuisse ne a tenebrarum gente corrumperetur, et ut caeterae consuleretur, ex parte corruptam, detestanda et abominanda eorum fabula somniat; quid est quod etiam in hoc conatur fallere imperitos, et in divinis Scripturis minus eruditos, ut interrogatus utrum accipiat apostolum Paulum, respondeat, Maxime; et inveniatur, minime?
11.4 PL 42, 248
4. But Faustus has a proof to show that Paul changed his mind, and, in writing to the Corinthians, corrected what he had written to the Romans; or else that he never wrote the passage which appears as his, about Jesus Christ being born of the seed of David according to the flesh. And what is this proof? If the passage, he says, in the Epistle to the Romans is true, "the Son of God, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," what he says to the Corinthians cannot be true, "Henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more." We must therefore show that both these passages are true, and not opposed to one another. The agreement of the manuscripts proves both to be genuine. In some Latin versions the word "born" is used instead of "made," which is not so literal a rendering, but gives the same meaning. For both these translations, as well as the original, teach that Christ was of the seed of David after the flesh. We must not for a moment suppose that Paul corrected himself on account of a change of opinion. Faustus himself felt the impropriety and impiety of such an explanation, and preferred to say that the passage was spurious, instead of that Paul was mistaken.
Sed certa, inquit, ratio est, qua ostendam Paulum apostolum aut proficiendo mutasse sententiam, et scribentem ad Corinthios, emendasse quod scripserat ad Romanos; aut omnino non scripsisse, quod tanquam ejus profertur, Filium Dei ex semine David secundum carnem. Qua tandem ratione id ostendit? Quia non potest, inquit, utrumque verum esse, et quod in Epistola est ad Romanos, De Filio suo, qui factus est ex semine David secundum carnem ; et quod ait ad Corinthios, Itaque nos amodo neminem novimus secundum carnem: et si noveramus secundum carnem Christum, sed nunc jam non novimus . Restat ergo ut nos demonstremus quam possit utrumque verum esse, et quam sibi haec duo non sint contraria. Unum quippe eorum non esse Pauli, nullo modo possumus dicere; quia nulla in eo variat codicum auctoritas. Etsi enim in quibusdam latinis exemplaribus non legitur, factus, sed, natus ex semine David, cum graeca factus habeant, unde non ad verbum, sed ad sententiam transferre voluit dicendo, natum, latinus interpres: tamen Christum ex semine David esse secundum carnem, omnium librorum atque linguarum concordat auctoritas. In hoc autem Paulum aliquando errasse, et proficiendo mutasse sententiam, absit ut dicamus. Quod etiam ipse Faustus sensit quam improbe atque impie diceretur; maluitque dicere, Pauli Epistolam aliorum falsitate corruptam, quam ipsius errore vitiosam.
11.5 PL 42, 248
5. As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth in obscure and recondite matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected in subsequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle says: "And if ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you." Such writings are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind. If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself. In other books the reader may form his own opinion, and perhaps, from not understanding the writer, may differ from him, and may pronounce in favor of what pleases him, or against what he dislikes. In such cases, a man is at liberty to withhold his belief, unless there is some clear demonstration or some canonical authority to show that the doctrine or statement either must or may be true. But in consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility, if contempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an end to that authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless confusion.
De his enim libris dici potest, aliquid eos habere non consonum fortasse occultiori, et ad dignoscendum difficiliori veritati, quod aut sic remanserit, aut in posterioribus correctum sit, qui non praecipiendi auctoritate, sed proficiendi exercitatione scribuntur a nobis. Inter hos enim sumus, quibus idem apostolus dicit: Et si quid aliter sapitis, id quoque vobis Deus revelabit . Quod genus litterarum non cum credendi necessitate, sed cum judicandi libertate legendum est. Cui tamen ne intercluderetur locus, et adimiretur posteris ad quaestiones difficiles tractandas atque versandas linguae ac stili saluberrimus labor, distincta est a posteriorum libris excellentia canonicae auctoritatis Veteris et Novi Testamenti, quae Apostolorum confirmata temporibus per successiones episcoporum et propagationes Ecclesiarum, tanquam in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est, cui serviat omnis fidelis et pius intellectus. Ibi si quid velut absurdum moverit, non licet dicere, Auctor hujus libri non tenuit veritatem: sed, aut codex mendosus est, aut interpres erravit, aut tu non intelligis. In opusculis autem posteriorum, quae libris innumerabilibus continentur, sed nullo modo illae sacratissimae canonicarum Scripturarum excellentiae coaequantur, etiam in quibuscumque eorum invenitur eadem veritas, longe tamen est impar auctoritas. Itaque in eis, si qua forte propterea dissonare putantur a vero, quia non ut dicta sunt intelliguntur, tamen liberum ibi habet lector auditorve judicium, quo vel approbet quod placuerit, vel improbet quod offenderit: et ideo cuncta ejusmodi nisi vel certa ratione, vel ex illa canonica auctoritate defendantur, ut demonstretur sive omnino ita esse, sive fieri potuisse quod vel disputatum ibi est, vel narratum; si cui displicuerit, aut credere noluerit, non reprehenditur. In illa vero canonica eminentia sacrarum Litterarum, etiamsi unus propheta, seu apostolus, aut evangelista aliquid in suis Litteris posuisse ipsa canonis confirmatione declaratur, non licet dubitare quod verum sit: alioquin nulla erit pagina, qua humanae imperitiae regatur infirmitas, si Librorum canonicorum saluberrima auctoritas, aut contempta penitus aboletur, aut interminata confunditur.
11.6 PL 42, 249
6. With regard, then, to this apparent contradiction between the passage which speaks of the Son of God being of the seed of David, to the words, "Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more," even though both quotations were not from the writings of one apostle,—though one were from Paul, and the other from Peter, or Isaiah, or any other apostle or prophet,—such is the equality of canonical authority, that it would not be allowable to doubt of either. For the utterances of Scripture, harmonious as if from the mouth of one man, commend themselves to the belief of the most accurate and clear-sighted piety, and demand for their discovery and confirmation the calmest intelligence and the most ingenious research. In the case before us both quotations are from the canonical, that is, the genuine epistles of Paul. We cannot say that the manuscript is faulty, for the best Latin translations substantially agree; or that the translations are wrong, for the best texts have the same reading. So that, if any one is perplexed by the apparent contradiction, the only conclusion is that he does not understand. Accordingly it remains for me to explain how both passages, instead of being contradictory, may be harmonized by one rule of sound faith. The pious inquirer will find all perplexity removed by a careful examination.
Quapropter quisquis es, quem velut repugnantia ista moverunt, quod alibi scriptum est, Filium Dei ex semine David, alibi autem, Et si noveramus Christum secundum carnem, sed jam nunc non novimus: et si non utrumque ex unius Apostoli Litteris proferretur, sed unum eorum Paulus dixisset, alterum Petrus, aut Isaias, aut alius quisquam Apostolorum, sive Prophetarum; quia ita sibi omnia in canonica auctoritate concordant, ut tanquam uno ore dicta, justissima et prudentissima pietate credantur, et serenissimo intellectu inveniantur, et solertissima diligentia demonstrentur; non liceret de alterutro dubitare. Proinde, quia ex apostoli Pauli canonicis, id est, vere Pauli Epistolis, utrumque profertur, et non possumus dicere, aut mendosum esse codicem, omnes enim latini emendati sic habent; aut interpretem errasse, omnes enim graeci emendati sic habent: restat ut tu non intelligas, a me autem ratio flagitetur, quomodo neutrum ab altero dissonet, sed in eadem sanae fidei regula utrumque concordet. Si enim tu quoque pie quaereres, posses invenire quomodo ista perscrutata dilucescant.
11.7 PL 42, 249
7. That the Son of God was made man of the seed of David, is not only said in other places by Paul, but is taught elsewhere in sacred Scripture. As regards the words, "Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more," the context shows what is the apostle’s meaning. Here, or elsewhere, he views with an assured hope, as if it were already present and in actual possession, our future life, which is now fulfilled in our risen Head and Mediator, the man Christ Jesus. This life will certainly not be after the flesh, even as Christ’s life is now not after the flesh. For by flesh the apostle here means not the substance of our bodies, in which sense the Lord used the word when, after His resurrection, He said, "Handle me, and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have," but the corruption and mortality of flesh, which will then not be in us, as now it is not in Christ. The apostle uses the word flesh in the sense of corruption in the passage about the resurrection quoted before: "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither shall corruption inherit incorruption." So, after the event described in the next verse, "Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall all rise, but we shall not all be changed. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump (for the trumpet shall sound); and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality,"—then flesh, in the sense of the substance of the body, will, after this change, no longer have flesh, in the sense of the corruption of mortality; and yet, as regards its own nature, it will be the same flesh, the same which rises and which is changed. What the Lord said after His resurrection is true, "Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have;" and what the apostle says is true, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." The first is said of the bodily substance, which exists as the subject of the change: the second is said of the corruption of the flesh, which will cease to exist, for, after its change, flesh will not be corrupted. So, "we have known Christ after the flesh," that is, after the mortality of flesh, before His resurrection; "now henceforth we know Him no more," because, as the same apostle says, "Christ being risen from the dead, dieth no more, and death hath no more dominion over Him." The words, "we have known Christ after the flesh," strictly speaking, imply that Christ was after the flesh, for what never was cannot be known. And it is not "we have supposed," but "we have known." But not to insist on a word, in case some one should say that known is used in the sense of supposed, it is astonishing, if one could be surprised at want of sight in a blind man, that these blind people do not perceive that if what the apostle says about not knowing Christ after the flesh proves that Christ had not flesh, then what he says in the same place of not knowing any one henceforth after the flesh proves that all those here referred to had not flesh. For when he speaks of not knowing any one, he cannot intend to speak only of Christ; but in his realization of the future life with those who are to be changed at the resurrection, he says, "Henceforth we know no man after the flesh;" that is, we have such an assured hope of our future incorruption and immortality, that the thought of it makes us rejoice even now. So he says elsewhere: "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things that are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God. Set your affections upon things above, and not on things on the earth." It is true we have not yet risen as Christ has, but we are said to have risen with Him on account of the hope which we have in Him. So again he says: "According to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration." Evidently what we obtain in the washing of regeneration is not the salvation itself, but the hope of it. And yet, because this hope is certain, we are said to be saved, as if the salvation were already bestowed. Elsewhere it is said explicitly: "We groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, even the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope. But hope which is seen is not hope; for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for what we see not, then do we with patience wait for it." The apostle says not, "we are to be saved," but, "We are now saved," that is, in hope, though not yet in reality. And in the same way it is in hope, though not yet in reality, that we now know no man after the flesh. This hope is in Christ, in whom what we hope for as promised to us has already been fulfilled. He is risen, and death has no more dominion over Him. Though we have known Him after the flesh, before His death, when there was in His body that mortality which the apostle properly calls flesh, now henceforth know we Him no more; for that mortal of His has now put on immortality, and His flesh, in the sense of mortality, no longer exists.
Nam quod Filius Dei ex semine David homo factus est, nec idem apostolus uno loco dicit, et aliae sanctae Scripturae apertissime praedicant. Quod vero dicit, Et si noveramus Christum secundum carnem, sed jam nunc non novimus; ea ipsa circumstantia Scripturae loci ejus satis ostendit quid loquatur Apostolus. Suo quippe more vitam nostram futuram, quae jam in ipso homine mediatore Christo Jesu capite nostro resurgente completa est, ita spe certa meditatur, tanquam jam adsit, praesensque teneatur: quae utique vita non erit secundum carnem, sicut jam Christi vita non est secundum carnem. Carnem namque hoc loco non ipsam corporis nostri substantiam, quam Dominus etiam post resurrectionem suam carnem appellat, dicens, Palpate et videte, quia spiritus ossa et carnem non habet, sicut me videtis habere ; sed corruptionem mortalitatemque carnis vult intelligi, quae tunc non erit in nobis, sicut jam in Christo non est. Hanc enim proprie carnem nominabat, etiam cum de ipsa resurrectione satis evidenter loqueretur, et diceret, quod jam supra commemoravi, Caro et sanguis regnum Dei possidere non possunt, neque corruptio incorruptionem possidebit. Cum ergo factum fuerit, quod ibi consequenter dicit, Ecce mysterium vobis dico: omnes quidem resurgemus, non tamen omnes immutabimur. In atomo, id est, in momento, in ictu oculi, in novissima tuba, canet enim tuba, et mortui resurgent incorrupti, et nos immutabimur: oportet enim corruptibile hoc induere incorruptionem, et mortale hoc induere immortalitatem : jam secundum id quod carnem, non ipsam corporis substantiam, sed ipsam corruptionem mortalitatis appellat, non erit utique caro, quia corruptionem mortalitatis mutata non habebit; secundum autem ipsius substantiae corporisque originem eadem caro erit, quia ipsa resurget et ipsa mutabitur, quia et illud verum est quod ait Dominus, posteaquam resurrexit, Palpate et videte, quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere; et hoc verum est quod ait Apostolus, Caro et sanguis regnum Dei possidere non possunt. Illud enim dictum est secundum ipsam substantiam, quae etiam tunc erit, quia ipsa mutabitur: hoc autem dictum est secundum carnalem corruptionis qualitatem, quae tunc jam non erit, quia mutata caro non corrumpetur. Noveramus ergo Christum secundum carnem, id est, secundum carnis mortalitatem antequam resurgeret: sed nunc jam non novimus; quia, sicut idem dicit apostolus, Christus resurgens a mortuis jam non moritur, et mors ei ultra non dominabitur .
Nam si te ad verborum proprietatem teneas, mentitus est cum ait, Noveramus Christum secundum carnem, si Christus nunquam fuit secundum carnem: nemo enim noverat quod non erat. Non autem dixit, Putabamus Christum secundum carnem; sed, Noveramus. Verumtamen ut verbo non premam, ne quis affirmet per abusionem locutum Apostolum, ut pro eo quod est, putabamus, diceret, Noveramus: illud miror non attendere homines caecos, vel potius non miror non videre caecos, quia si Christus ideo non habuit carnem, quia dixit Apostolus, nunc jam non se nosse Christum secundum carnem; nec illi habuerunt carnem, de quibus in eodem loco dicit, Itaque nos amodo neminem novimus secundum carnem. Neque enim de solo Christo id volens intelligi, posset dicere, Neminem novimus secundum carnem: sed quia illorum secum vitam futuram tanquam praesentem meditabatur, qui resurgentes commutabuntur, Amodo, inquit neminem novimus secundum carnem; id est, tam certam spem tenemus futurae nostrae incorruptionis et immortalitatis, ut amodo jam in ipsa notitia gaudeamus. Unde alio loco dicit: Si autem resurrexistis cum Christo, quae sursum sunt quaerite, ubi Christus est ad dexteram Dei sedens: quae sursum sunt sapite, non quae super terram . Nondum utique resurreximus sicut Christus; sed tamen secundum spem, quae nobis in illo est, jam nos cum illo resurrexisse testatus est. Unde etiam dicit: Secundum suam misericordiam salvos nos fecit per lavacrum regenerationis . Quis autem non intelligat in lavacro regenerationis spem nobis datam salutis futurae, non jam salutem ipsam, quae promittitur? et tamen quia certa spes est, tanquam jam data esset eadem salus, salvos nos, inquit, fecit. Alio quippe loco dilucidissime dicit: Nos in nobis ipsis ingemiscimus, adoptionem exspectantes, redemptionem corporis nostri. Spe enim salvi facti sumus. Spes autem quae videtur, non est spes: quod enim videt quis, quid sperat? Si autem quod non videmus, speramus, per patientiam exspectamus . Sicut ergo hic non dixit, Salvi futuri sumus; sed, Amodo jam salvi facti sumus, nondum tamen in re, sed in spe, Spe enim, inquit, salvi facti sumus: sic et quod ibi dictum est, Amodo neminem novimus secundum carnem; nondum in re, sed in spe intelligitur: quia spes nobis in Christo est, quia in illo jam completum est quod nobis promissum speramus. Ille quippe jam resurrexit, et mors ei ultra non dominabitur. Quem et si noveramus secundum carnem, cum adhuc moriturus esset; inerat quippe in ejus corpore illa mortalitas, quam proprie carnem appellat Apostolus: sed jam nunc non novimus; illud enim ejus mortale jam induit immortalitatem, unde secundum pristinam mortalitatem jam caro appellari non possit.
11.8 PL 42, 251
8. The context of the passage containing this clause of which our adversaries make such a bad use, brings out its real meaning. "The love of Christ," we read, "constrains us, because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but to Him who died for them, and rose again. Therefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh; and though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more." The words, "that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him who died for them, and rose again," show plainly that the resurrection of Christ is the ground of the apostle’s statement. To live not to themselves, but to Him, must mean to live not after the flesh, in the hope of earthly and perishable goods, but after the spirit, in the hope of resurrection,—a resurrection already accomplished in Christ. Of those, then, for whom Christ died and rose again, and who live henceforth not to themselves, but to Him, the Apostle says that he knows no one after the flesh, on account of the hope of future immortality to which they were looking forward,—a hope which in Christ was already a reality. So, though he has known Christ after the flesh, before His death, now he knows Him no more; for he knows that He has risen, and that death has no more dominion over Him. And because in Christ we all are even now in hope, though not in reality, what Christ is, he adds: "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself by Christ." What the new creature—that is, the people renewed by faith—hopes for regarding itself, it has already in Christ; and the hope will also hereafter be actually realized. And, as regards this hope, old things have passed away, because we are no longer in the times of the Old Testament, expecting a temporal and carnal kingdom of God; and all things are become new, making the promise of the kingdom of heaven, where there shall be no death or corruption, the ground of our confidence. But in the resurrection of the dead it will not be as a matter of hope, but in reality, that old things shall pass away, when the last enemy, death, shall be destroyed; and all things shall become new when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality. This has already taken place in Christ, whom Paul accordingly, in reality, knew no longer after the flesh. But not yet in reality, but only in hope, did he know no one after the flesh of those for whom Christ died and rose again. For, as he says to the Ephesians, we are already saved by grace. The whole passage is to the purpose: "But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, by whose grace we have been saved." The words, "hath quickened us together with Christ," correspond to what he said to the Corinthians, "that they which live should no longer live to themselves, but to Him that died for them and rose again." And in the words, "by whose grace we have been saved," he speaks of the thing hoped for as already accomplished. So, in the passage quoted above, he says explicitly, "We have been saved by hope." And here he proceeds to specify future events as if already accomplished. "And has raised us up together," he says, "and has made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." Christ is certainly already seated in heavenly places, but we not yet. But as in an assured hope we already possess the future, he says that we sit in heavenly places, not in ourselves, but in Him. And to show that it is still future, in case it should be thought that what is spoken of as accomplished in hope has been accomplished in reality, he adds, "that He might show in the ages to come the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness towards us in Christ Jesus." So also we must understand the following passage: "For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death." He says, "when we were in the flesh," as if they were no longer in the flesh. He means to say, when we were in the hope of fleshly things, referring to the time when the law, which can be fulfilled only by spiritual love, was in force, in order that by transgression the offence might abound, that after the revelation of the New Testament, grace and the gift by grace might much more abound. And to the same effect he says elsewhere, "They which are in the flesh cannot please God;" and then, to show that he does not mean those not yet dead, he adds, "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit." The meaning is, those who are in the hope of fleshly good cannot please God; but you are not in the hope of fleshly things, but in the hope of spiritual things, that is, of the kingdom of heaven, where the body itself, which now is natural, will, by the change in the resurrection, be, according to the capacity of its nature, a spiritual body. For "it is sown a natural body, it will be raised a spiritual body." If, then, the apostle knew no one after the flesh of those who were said to be not in the flesh, because they were not in the hope of fleshly things, although they still were burdened with corruptible and mortal flesh; how much more significantly could he say of Christ that he no longer knew Him after the flesh, seeing that in the body of Christ what they hoped for had already been accomplished! Surely it is better and more reverential to examine the passages of sacred Scripture so as to discover their agreement with one another, than to accept some as true, and condemn others as false, whenever any difficulty occurs beyond the power of our weak intellect to solve. As to the apostle in his childhood understanding as a child, this is said merely as an illustration. And when he was a child he was not a spiritual man, as he was when he produced for the edification of the churches those writings which are not, as other books, merely a profitable study, but which authoritatively claim our belief as part of the ecclesiastical canon.
————————————
Itaque ipsius loci contextionem, ubi haec sententia est, de qua isti calumniantur, consideremus, ut hoc quod dico, magis eluceat. Charitas, inquit, Christi compellit nos; judicantes hoc quoniam si unus pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt: et pro omnibus mortuus est, ut qui vivunt, jam non sibi vivant, sed ei qui pro ipsis mortuus est et resurrexit. Itaque nos amodo neminem novimus secundum carnem: et si noveramus secundum carnem Christum, sed jam nunc non novimus. Certe jam nunc cuivis apparet propter resurrectionem Christi hoc dixisse Apostolum; quandoquidem ista verba illud praecessit, Ut qui vivunt, jam non sibi vivant, sed ei qui pro ipsis mortuus est et resurrexit. Quid est enim aliud, non sibi, sed ei vivant, nisi ut secundum carnem non vivant in spe terrenorum et corruptibilium bonorum, sed secundum spiritum in spe resurrectionis, quae jam ex ipsis in Christo facta est? Itaque eorum pro quibus Christus mortuus est et resurrexit, et qui jam non sibi, sed illi vivunt, neminem secundum carnem Apostolus noverat, propter spem futurae immortalitatis, in cujus exspectatione vivebant, quae in Christo jam non spes, sed res erat: quem et si noverat secundum carnem, cum adhuc moriturus esset, jam tamen non noverat; quia eum resurrexisse noverat, et ultra ei mortem non dominaturam. Et quia omnes in illo, et si nondum in re, jam tamen spe hoc sumus, sequitur et dicit: Si qua igitur in Christo nova creatura, vetera transierunt: ecce facta sunt omnia nova. Omnia autem ex Deo, qui reconciliavit nos sibi per Christum . Omnis ergo nova creatura, id est, populus innovatus per fidem, ut habeat interim in spe, quod in re postea perficiatur, in Christo habet jam quod in se sperat. Itaque nunc vetera transierunt secundum spem, quia modo jam non est tempus Veteris Testamenti, quo temporale atque carnale regnum exspectetur a Deo: et facta sunt omnia nova secundum eamdem spem, ut regnum coelorum, ubi nulla erit mors atque corruptio, promissum teneamus. In resurrectione autem mortuorum jam non secundum spem, sed secundum rem, et vetera transibunt, cum inimica novissima destruetur mors: et fient omnia nova, cum corruptibile hoc induerit incorruptionem, et mortale hoc induerit immortalitatem : quod jam factum est in Christo, quem secundum rem, jam non noverat Paulus secundum carnem: eorum vero pro quibus mortuus est et resurrexit, nondum secundum rem, sed secundum spem, neminem noverat secundum carnem; quia illius gratia, sicut idem ad Ephesios dicit, sumus salvi facti. Nam et ipse locus huic sententiae sic attestatur: Deus autem, inquit, qui dives est in misericordia, propter multam dilectionem qua dilexit nos, etcum essemus mortui peccatis, convivificavit nos Christo; cujus gratia sumus salvi facti. Quod enim hic dixit, Convivificavit nos Christo, hoc dixit ad Corinthios, Ut qui vivunt, jam non sibi vivant, sed ei qui pro ipsis mortuus est et resurrexit. Et quod hic dicit, Cujus gratia salvi sumus facti; jam velut perfectum sit loquitur, quod in spe tenet. Nam quod paulo ante commemoravi, apertissime alibi dicit: Spe enim salvi facti sumus. Ideoque et hic sequitur, et tanquam perfectum enumerat quod futurum est: Et simul, inquit, excitavit, et simul sedere fecit in coelestibus in Christo Jesu. Certe enim in coelestibus Christus jam sedet, nondum autem nos: sed quia spe certa, quod futurum est, jam tenemus, simul sedere nos dixit in coelestibus, nondum in nobis, sed jam in illo. Namque ne putares jam nunc esse perfectum, quod in spe ita dicitur, tanquam perfectum sit, atque ut intelligas adhuc futurum, sequitur et dicit: Ut ostenderet in supervenientibus saeculis superabundantes divitias gratiae suae in benignitate super nos in Christo Jesu . Hinc est et illud: Cum enim essemus in carne, passiones peccatorum, quae per legem sunt, operabantur in membris nostris, ut fructum ferrent morti . Ita enim dixit, Cum essemus in carne, quasi jam non essent in carne: quod ita intelligitur, Cum essemus in spe rerum carnalium: quando lex, quae impleri non potest nisi per charitatem spiritualem, ad hoc super eos erat, ut per praevaricationem abundaret delictum; ut postea revelato Novo Testamento, per indulgentiam, superabundaret gratia . Hinc similiter alibi dicit: Qui autem in carne sunt, Deo placere non possunt. Et ne putaret quisquam eos dictos, qui nondum mortui sunt, statim subjecit: Vos autem non estis in carne, sed in spiritu . Id est, qui in spe carnalium bonorum sunt, Deo placere non possunt; vos autem non estis in spe carnalium, sed in spe spiritualium, id est, regni coelorum, ubi et ipsum corpus per illam mutationem in suo quodam genere spirituale erit, quod modo animale est. Seminatur enim corpus animale, sicut ad Corinthios idem dicit, resurget corpus spirituale . Si ergo neminem eorum jam noverat secundum carnem Apostolus, qui propterea dicebantur non esse in carne, quia non erant in spe rerum carnalium, quamvis adhuc corruptibilem carnem mortalemque portarent; quanto expressius de Christo diceret quod eum jam non noverat secundum carnem, in cujus corpore etiam re ipsa jam perfectum erat, quod illi in spe promissum tenebant? Quanto ergo melius, quanto religiosius divinae Scripturae ita tractantur, ut discussis omnibus concordare inveniantur, quam deficiente homine in quaestione quam solvere non potest, tanquam verae in parte acceptentur, et tanquam falsae in parte damnentur? Quia et cum esset parvulus Apostolus, et ea quae parvuli erant, saperet quanquam hoc ad similitudinem dixerit, nondum erat tamen spiritualis, qualis jam erat cum scriberet quae ad Ecclesiarum aedificationem, non proficiendi exercitatione in studiosorum manibus versarentur, sed praecipiendi auctoritate in ecclesiastico canone legerentur.